> > Pushing items onto a stack isn't inherently a prepend operation.
> a stack has no idea of "prepend" or similar. It's defined by abstract like operations PUSH, POP, IS-EMPTY, MAKE-STACK. How it is implemented is an implementation detail.
You say that as if the fact that it's an implementation detail means it doesn't matter.
Implementation details do, in fact, matter.
> > It's generally a "put it on an end" operation,
> Which you made up. There is nothing "generally" like that.
So you're saying that stacks don't have a "push" operation? Or that you don't understand what "push" does?
> > meaning you could append it. Now, with a linked list that would be slower,
> and to append would be unnecessary.
Literally picking and quoting parts of two sentences out of context to state the obvious as if it's a response to anything I said in context is a new low even for you.
> > So if I do implement a simple stack, I implement it with a vector (example[1]).
> That's a simple "bounded" & "fixed size" stack.
No, it's not. Are you aware that vectors can be resized?
> > Yes, I know the answer you're fishing for is "immutability"
> That would be one answer. Can you think of more?
I'm not going to make your argument for you. If you have something to say, say it.
> a stack has no idea of "prepend" or similar. It's defined by abstract like operations PUSH, POP, IS-EMPTY, MAKE-STACK. How it is implemented is an implementation detail.
You say that as if the fact that it's an implementation detail means it doesn't matter.
Implementation details do, in fact, matter.
> > It's generally a "put it on an end" operation,
> Which you made up. There is nothing "generally" like that.
So you're saying that stacks don't have a "push" operation? Or that you don't understand what "push" does?
> > meaning you could append it. Now, with a linked list that would be slower,
> and to append would be unnecessary.
Literally picking and quoting parts of two sentences out of context to state the obvious as if it's a response to anything I said in context is a new low even for you.
> > So if I do implement a simple stack, I implement it with a vector (example[1]).
> That's a simple "bounded" & "fixed size" stack.
No, it's not. Are you aware that vectors can be resized?
> > Yes, I know the answer you're fishing for is "immutability"
> That would be one answer. Can you think of more?
I'm not going to make your argument for you. If you have something to say, say it.